By: Tim Washington

Tim Washington — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:30:39 +0000

Hi Sue, thank you for the comments. We are focused on sequencing because the organization has chosen not to prioritize any project work. In lieu of prioritizing, we are trying to do a better job of sequencing. The dependencies are a pseudo-priority based on the downstream impacts. I may not have expressed myself well, but it turns out that we are doing something similar to what you are talking about–there are many “capabilities” needed to support downstream projects, so we are trying to take a more careful approach to initiating new projects based on these dependencies. The capabilities themselves are not strategic, but they support important projects. I was using the word ‘tactical’ in contrast to ‘strategic’ because we are not considering projects from a strategic point of view and are not “doing” portfolio management from a traditional sense, hence the idea of “tactical portfolio management.” Nevertheless, we are doing some portfolio planning by considering the whole portfolio from a more tactical perspective. Thanks again.

By: Sue Bivins

Sue Bivins — Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:52:11 +0000

Tim, great blogs and I like your concept of tactical portfolio management to manage sequencing and prevent resource conflict. Just a thought — some dependencies may not be sequence-oriented. Projects with low direct strategic value may be pre-requisite or co-requisite as enablers for projects with high strategic value. These dependencies are thus strategic in nature and should be considered upstream of the project sequencing that is part of tactical portfolio management.

Comments on: Tactical or Strategic PPM

By: Tim Washington

By: Sue Bivins